Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a standard rule for consideration of conference reports and waives all points of order against consideration of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, the process of reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and the Family Violence Prevention Treatment Act completes a promise made to the American people that was begun in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the last Congress adjourned before consensus was reached between the two bodies on this very important issue. By taking up the conference report on the reintroduced legislation today, Congress is demonstrating an ongoing commitment to ensuring that programs to prevent child abuse, neglect, and family violence can continue to work and to protect American families. The underlying conference report that we are debating maintains important Federal resources for identifying and addressing issues of domestic violence. It supports efforts to ensure that the current programs designed to address these issues are operating effectively and efficiently, and that they promote the prevention of child abuse before these heinous acts can occur. The conference report retains language promoting partnerships between child protective services and private and community-based organizations, including education and mental health systems, to provide child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment services. It improves the training, recruitment, and retention of individuals who are capable of providing services to children and families. It also increases the availability of casework supervisors for oversight and consultation, while simultaneously improving public education on the role of the child protective services system and appropriate reporting of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, to reduce the number of false or malicious allegations. This conference report requires States to have provisions and procedures for administering criminal background checks to prospective foster and adoptive parents, and other adult relatives and nonrelatives residing in the household, and helps to improve the training opportunities and requirements of child protective services personnel to ensure their active collaboration with families, and their knowledge of legal duties with these individuals to protect children's individual rights. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires States to implement policies and procedures to address the needs of infants born and identification as being affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, including the requirement that healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of such infants notify child protective services of the occurrence of such conditions in infants. It then requires the development and planning of safe care for such infants. Lastly, the conference report retains language that expands priority services to infants and young children who are born with a life- threatening condition or with other very special medical needs, to ensure that these special needs are met and that these special children have a chance in life. If there is one issue upon which every single Member of this institution can agree, regardless of his or her political belief, it should be the need to prevent child abuse and domestic abuse. These atrocities and often silent crimes do lasting damage to the lives of individuals and the moral fabric of our society. There exists a responsibility incumbent upon each of us to enact laws that protect the most vulnerable in our society, and this conference report will go a very long way to accomplish that exactly that noble and moral goal. I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation, H.R. 14, easily passed through its committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, earlier this year and then through the House by voice vote. Today's conference report should continue to enjoy widespread and overwhelming bipartisan support as it has already enjoyed tremendous support throughout the child abuse and family violence prevention advocacy communities. I would ask each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate their commitment to American families, to American communities, and to America's future by supporting this conference report. In particular today, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the House sponsor of this legislation; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their hard work in producing this conference report. I would also like to take this moment to commend the conferees from both bodies that have labored to produce this fine product. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the issue we have before us, this rule, this conference report that we are working on, really does talk about ways in which we can go and improve the lives of millions of children, where we can help families. Families, many times single parents, who are under the stress and strain of attempting to go to work, raise their family, meet their obligations in the community, to their schools, need some help, and I think that that is exactly what this bill does. It does it in a way that community-based organizations can become involved in the life and the opportunity to make not only their neighborhoods and their schools and their communities is safer and better, but they did it in a way that is a partnership. This administration, this President, supports this. This administration, our President, when President Bush was the Governor of Texas, worked extensively in Texas across Texas in poor communities to try to make the lives better of children to provide them an opportunity to grow up and not only be in safe neighborhoods, but also have safety in their schools. So I think that the underlying legislation in this conference report is fabulous. It does a lot of things to make sure that as a Member of Congress, that all of us as Members of Congress, that we can become engaged in things that we not only can hold our head up high about but we can mentor with our President to make sure that people see this Congress as a caring group of men and women who not only want to ensure the success of people who many of whom we will never know their names but the children who live their lives and are prepared for the future. I think that in the scheme of things this is a question that comes about not just to Members of Congress but as a demand on this country. The demand on our country is do America's greatest days lie in our future? Are we doing those things throughout the 40 some weeks that we are here in Washington, D.C. away from our families, are we handling the business of the people to make sure that we make life better? And I think that answer is yes. Today the underlying legislation is yet another example of this Congress working together with this President to make sure that America's greatest days lie in our future because we are active, engaged, and involved with our communities and with people back home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 for an eligible child. The child tax credit was not refundable for most families. However, for families with three or more eligible children the credit was refundable, to the extent the family had payroll liability that was not offset by the earned income tax credit. What we have attempted to do, and what was signed into law on May 28, accelerates and increases the child credit. Certainly one has to qualify, but the child credit will increase from $600 per child to $1,000 per child in 2003 and 2004, and in 2005 the credit will revert back to its 2001 act-in phase. That means that what we have done is to move forward very quickly an acceleration, because I believe, and my party believes, and this bill believes that it is the right thing to do. The bottom line is that due to political constraints there was not as much money. So what we did is we moved forward from $600 to $1,000, but it is only good for 2 tax years. We have a lot of work to do, Mr. Speaker; but I am ready to do that work. I think this body is ready to do that work, and we intend to get it done. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Republican House has since 1997 made sure that we reduce taxes on people all across the board; and under this new tax cut that we are talking about, a single mother with two children earning $20,000 will receive over $2,000 in payment from the government with no tax liability, no tax liability and $2,000 back. So we really do care about people. We have reduced the tax burden on the American public and will keep doing that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart). (Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This rule that is before us about check clearing is really something that I think that consumers and the banking community are going to find of interest, and I am sorry that the debate is not on this modernization of the system. What we are going to do with this wonderful bill that we have before us today is to, once again, prove that an agenda that can move forward problems that are facing the American public, costs that are in its way, inefficiencies in our banking system which is what this bill is about, we are going to solve, be another part of the solution today; and I am very, very proud of not only the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a bright young Member that we have, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for bringing this bill, these ideas forward. But I think it shows that, as we talk about and move forward in this great body, the important aspects of that make a difference in America, just like tax cuts; that the American people will see that this House of Representatives not only works, it provides tax relief. It provides things in our banking system that will keep modernizing America. It will make sure that we are prepared for the future, and as we go past this bill into other areas, whether it be appropriations or working with intelligence or matters of national security, that this House of Representatives every time brings forth a full debate, not only on the issues but makes sure that time is allocated for even the minority party to stand up and to talk about their frustrations. I think what we are doing today with this bill makes sense. I think the American people see that this House of Representatives and this administration intends to move forward in a proactive, positive way that all Americans can have not only confidence in their government but also confidence in the free market enterprise system that we are so proud of that produces jobs and keeps our economy going. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This debate has gone very quickly away from the subject that we had at hand, but I would like to remind my colleagues that tax cuts do work. They get money back to people who are able to utilize them, just like the families that are being talked about here. The fact of the matter is that this fabulous jobs and growth package that was signed by the President last week has already begun to work in the marketplace. It is seen as a catalyst now for people to want to come and invest more money, not only in this country but also for corporations to have an opportunity to begin employing people, an opportunity for the American people to see the opportunity for them to have jobs and more money back in their pockets; and it is amazing how the debate over all these years and even from just about 10 days ago, May 22, when every single tax cut was bad and every single thing that we would do to take money away from our precious government was seen as a threat to national security, and yet, today, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about a tax cut that would be necessary to help out the American people again. That is why we will stay after this. That is why the Republican Party will continue to not only believe in tax cuts that are great for people but an opportunity to give more money back to people who have earned that money and to help out families and children. This is why we have had as part of the bill the marriage penalty because we do not believe that one spouse that works even part-time should be taxed at the highest rate of the household income. We are proud of what we are doing, and we are going to keep doing it; and so I am pleased to hear my colleagues talk about the need for tax cuts for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the debate about this tax bill was all about deficits and all about whether the increase of the debt, the public debt limit was going to be achieved. And what happened is that, as we deliberated about the bill, any motion to instruct conferees from the other party was about those two issues. It was not about the substance of the bill as it related to anything that was contained within or to be talked about by the conferees. But, rather, they were focussed entirely on the debt and the amount of money that would be as a part of bill. Now we find out that, oh, my gosh, there was a part of this great tax cut that they maybe were for even though they were voting against that. So it is very interesting to hear this debate today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, House Resolution 256. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1474, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. The Committee on Rules on Tuesday afternoon granted an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate in the House on the underlying bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. I would like to reiterate to the House my satisfaction in the open rule granted for consideration of the underlying piece of legislation that we are debating today, which is also known as CHECK-21. CHECK-21 is an important bill, although it may seem a bit confusing at first blush for America's banking customers and check writers. The good news is this bill garnered bipartisan support in both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Rules, and I anticipate the same result as we move forward towards final passage on the floor today. The legislative work our House of Representatives will complete today builds on the legislative work that was started back in 1987 to foster innovation in the check collection system. The Expedited Funds Availability Act, which became law back in 1987, directed the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to improve our check processing system. Today we are making logical extensions to the work started in 1987 by using our much-improved electronic transfer technology to make check writing speedier and more reliable for all parties involved. Mr. Speaker, each check that is written and used for payment must actually make its way back to the check writer's home bank. That is how each bank patron with a checking account gets the check he or she wrote mailed back to them so that it can appear in their monthly statement. When we stop to think about it, there is a lot of time, money, and effort invested in getting checks back to their home banks. Checks that are written in one corner of our country today will be trucked and flown to their home bank, wherever they reside, all over the country as a normal part of American commerce, a great expense of time and money. Today, American commerce bears the great expense of time and money associated with shipping checks around the country because it is worth it. Checks are an important commercial instrument that help keep our economy moving. Today, as a cosponsor of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, I am proud to announce the introduction of a new instrument of commerce into the American economy, the substitute check. The substitute check will provide opportunities to greatly decrease the frantic highway and air traffic associated with the gargantuan task of shipping and flying billions of dollars worth of checks around this country every single year. Thanks to electronic imaging, paper checks have the opportunity to be converted into electronic form, transmitted in seconds to the home bank across the country, and printed out at their final destination as substitute checks. The bill provides all those institutions that see electronic transfer of commercial paper as the latest wave in modernizing our economic system the opportunity to use substitute checks, but does not require it. That way we all have a chance to ease into the new potential provided by the creation and introduction of substitute checks into the mainstream of commerce. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure customers that the same protections provided today under the Uniform Commercial Code for paper checks would also apply to substitute checks. Additionally, CHECK-21 provides legal indemnification protection to bank customers for losses arising from the receipt of substitute checks. CHECK-21 is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) of the Committee on Rules, as well as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who is the subcommittee chairman that is directing this legislation today, as well as all the original cosponsors of this very important bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are having this debate on the rule for Check-21. It quickly went to child tax credits. I include for the Record information on this from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, regular order.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will allow the minority the opportunity to consume their time, and then I will close.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Committee on Rules meets on a regular basis throughout the week, taking important pieces of legislation, hearing debate. It is not unusual for us to be in the Committee on Rules not only at odd hours of the day and night but also to hear hours of testimony from Members of Congress who have important legislation that they wish to bring forward; and I would like to be one member of that committee that stands up and says that I believe that the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our chairman, and his balance and wisdom and his dedication to a fair process is something that I believe sets this Committee on Rules up for success every single day. This bill that is on the floor is yet another example of that success that the chairman and this committee achieve. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is extending the debate that took place yesterday in the Committee on Rules on this exact same subject as we were rendering a rule about this debate that would take place today. I found yesterday, as I find today, that many of the speakers on the other side do not understand that there are three types of late-term abortions. One of those three is called a partial-birth abortion. There are two other procedures. Today, this bill is about partial-birth abortion. And for anyone to characterize this debate as it is not going to stop another abortion, it is not going to do anything, it is meaningless, that is simply not only untruthful, but it is disregarding the facts that are being placed before our colleagues today. What we are going to stop is a late-term abortion, and we recognize that there are two other types of late-term abortions that take place. There are some who suggest that as a result of Supreme Court laws and tests, that because those abortions would take place, in essence, in the womb, that they would not be legal. We, today, my party, this Committee on the Judiciary, this House of Representatives, is debating and will outlaw that which is known as partial-birth abortion.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor the champion of the 76th annual Scripps Howard National Spelling Bee. 251 spellers advanced to the finals of the National Spelling Bee that were held here in Washington, D.C. during May 28-29. The champion of the spelling bee is Sai Gunturi, an eighth grader at St. Mark's School of Texas, that is located in Dallas. Sai was challenged throughout the 15th round of competition, and ultimately won the tournament by correctly spelling the word pococurante {pO-kO-kyu- 'ran-tE} (pococurante is defined as caring little or indifferent, nonchalant). Sai was sponsored by The Dallas Morning News and comes from a fine family tradition of spelling excellence, as his sister Nivedita, tied for eighth place in the 1997 National Spelling Bee. Sai is not just a terrific speller, but also a tremendous asset to the greater St. Mark's school community. He is a community leader and an astounding scholar. My sincere congratulations go out to Sai, his family, and to his teachers and friends at St. Mark's.